D&D 5E WotC On Tasha, Race, Alignment: A Several-Year Plan

WotC spoke to the site Dicebreaker about D&D race and alignment, and their plans for the future.

• On of the motivations of the changes [character customization] in Tasha's Cauldron was to decouple race from class.
• The 'tightrope' between honouring legacy and freedom of character choice has not been effectively walked.
• Alignment is turning into a roleplaying tool, and will not be used to describe entire cultures.
• This work will take several years to fully implement.

 

[Iry]

When do we get to the part where people complain that "killing people and taking their stuff" in the real world is wrong, so we should take it out of D&D?

As a gag, I once ran a game where every combat scene "faded to black."
Murder is far worse than Sex, you know.

 

[Mistwell]

Those are the aptly named clone troopers. The stormtroopers are not clones. The newest trilogy even makes a point about how the First Order kidnaps children for the purpose of filling the ranks of their stormtrooper army.

I feel confident by saying "movies 1 to 3" you understood, I understood, and everyone understood the distinction I was making. I get this is traditional internet message board debate fodder to talk about what is or is not a stormtropper and the irony is not lost on me, but come on man. You knew very well what I was referring to.

 

[DemoMonkey]

"The point is, though, that they've already made drow and goblins playable. If it's a playable race, then it needs to be inclusive."

That's an interesting statement. Can you expand on that?

 

[pukunui]

"The point is, though, that they've already made drow and goblins playable. If it's a playable race, then it needs to be inclusive."

That's an interesting statement. Can you expand on that?

That is my reading of WotC's stance. The portrayal of, say, orcs wasn't really a (noticeable) problem until WotC made them a playable race.

The playable monsters in Volo's were presented in a "Here are some stats for playing as monsters. You wanted 'em but we can't be assed making sure they're any good, so use 'em at your own discretion." But when they realized that the default orc didn't play nicely with the Eberron and Wildemount versions, they actually had to sit down and rework it to make it more inclusive so anyone could see themselves playing as an orc.

 

[DemoMonkey]

I guess I'm asking how "Orcs are evil, but your PC can be whatever you want" is insufficiently inclusive and has to be changed to "Orcs are not evil".

 

[pukunui]

I guess I'm asking how "Orcs are evil, but your PC can be whatever you want" is insufficiently inclusive and has to be changed to "Orcs are not evil".

You'll have to ask WotC that. Or the people who have been asking them to make that change. I am merely an ally. Not an advocate.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I guess I'm asking how "Orcs are evil, but your PC can be whatever you want" is insufficiently inclusive and has to be changed to "Orcs are not evil".

Because that varies from setting to setting (even from region to region in the same setting). In Eberron, Orcs aren't evil at all, it's completely an individual thing. In Exandria, they have a curse that they have to overcome. In Forgotten Realms, most are evil because of their culture, but it's just a personal choice for all of them. In my world, Orcs have no predisposition towards any alignment. Why should the core rules tell me how I should run my orcs?

 

[DemoMonkey]

Saying "Your character can be whatever you want" is a player focused change. I support that.

Saying "This worldbuilding element, outside of just PC choice, is universally changed" has far broader playstyle, worldbuilding and DM impact. I'm not sure it's a good idea from any perspective except optics.

 

[The White Sorcerer]

There are monster stat blocks for things like bandit, cultist, gladiator, archmage, etc. There's no reason any of them have to be human.

Sure, but then why have goblins and orcs as separate monsters. I'd like to use something that's specifically race X with its own mechanical twist instead of just generic guard.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Saying "Your character can be whatever you want" is a player focused change. I support that.

Saying "This worldbuilding element, outside of just PC choice, is universally changed" has far broader playstyle, worldbuilding and DM impact. I'm not sure it's a good idea from any perspective except optics.

Except the latter is what actually needed changing.